IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified by necessity, emphasizing personal liberty.

ORDER :

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

3. Petitioners in B.A No.2577/2025 are the accused in Crime No.127/2025 of Atholy Police Station and petitioners in B.A Nos. 2634/2025 & 2579/2025 are the accused in Crime No.128/2025 of Atholy Police Station.

4. The allegation in Crime No.127/2025 is that, the petitioner assured the defacto complainant that, they will deliver household items to the establishment run by the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons assured to the defacto complainant that, they will deal with all GST related matters of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 made fake bill of Rs.17,78,100/- in the name of the defacto complainant's company, to the company's account with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and her husband.

5. The prosecution case in Crime No.128/2025 is that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 assured the defacto complainant from November 2023 onwards that, they will deliver household items to the establishment run by the defacto complainant named as "Olive Enterprises". It is alleged that the accused persons assured to the defacto complainant that they will deal with all GST related matters of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 made fake bills of Rs.99,65,662/- in the name of the defacto complainant's company.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

7. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order on 19.03.2025.

“Petitioners in these bail applications are the accused in Crime Nos.127/2025 & 128/2025 of Atholy Police Station.

2. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Now, it is submitted that the petitioners were not able to appear before the Investigating Officer because they apprehend arrest in connection with another case. That is not a reason for not appearing before the Investigating Officer. When the petitioners are appearing before the Investigating Officer based on the order from this Court, the police officer cannot record the arrest of the petitioners in connection with another case. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer once again.

3. If that be the case, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date.

Post on 28.03.2025.”

8. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in these crimes. There may be a direction to co-operate with the investigation. If that is the case, there is no question of custodial interrogation. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. But, the investigating officer submits before this Court that no custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, the petitioners can be directed to appear before the investigating officer once again to complete the procedures. If the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

10. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021 (5